Abortion | Father's Rights

[Trey of Diamonds]

You are saying the psychological hurt a man may endure is more important than the pain and possible psychological trauma of the woman who carries the child. You are saying a man's psychological needs are so important they trump the rights a woman has to her own body.

No but you are saying that the womans in more important than the mans. I'm just trying to show that men have feelings, needs and experience trauma. I'm not sure some people believe this to be the case.

 

[Buttercup]

No but you are saying that the womans in more important than the mans. I'm just trying to show that men have feelings, needs and experience trauma. I'm not sure some people believe this to be the case.

No way. I completely understand that a man may experience deep trauma in the case of an unwanted abortion. I'm just saying that unfortunately the woman has the final say as it's her body.

 

[Inky]

Ok, a number of us have argued ourselves into a corner and I don't think there is much more for us to say to each other on the points that have already been made. So, lets take the conversation in another direction. Someone mentioned taking the fetus out of the woman. So...

Would artificial wombs solve this problem?
Would the choice still remain with the woman?
Should more funds be used to explore this avenue?

If at some point in the future, it's possible to artificially incubate an embryo, and removing it intact is no more invasive or dangerous a procedure than abortion...then I wouldn't mind a law requiring women to release the embryo into the care of the father rather than aborting it.

 

[Buttercup]

It is not just her body anymore. The baby has their own hearbeat, their own DNA, their own bloodtype, etc. etc.

IMO it has nothing to do with the rights of the mother or the father. It has to do with the rights of the child.

You need to read the OP. This thread is about the father's rights.

 

[Storm]

Why is it an extremely good post? It looks a lot more like male bashing to me.



These comments are insulting and sexist. I don't care what her experience with men has been, we are not all to be lumped into the category of deadbeat. I'm offended that she would try and make us all appear to be losers.

The only point made was this one.



I guess this means that as a man my cause is hopeless. Because a woman can carry a baby and I can't, I have no rights, my feelings are not as important as a womans, my beliefs are not important at all and if the woman wants to kill my child she can do it with a smile, all so she doesn't have to live through the trauma of stretch marks.

I think it is safe to say that the three of us are never going to agree on this. I respect your opinions even though I disagree with them strongly.

Seems to me that everyone's disregarding everyone else. Except Mestemia, and hopefully, me.

 

[Buttercup]

Seems to me that everyone's disregarding everyone else. Except Mestemia, and hopefully, me.

What???

 

[Storm]

Sorry, chimpy, I forgot you. I was rather peeved at both "feelings, shmeelings" and "the trauma of stretch marks."

 

[Kungfuzed]

How very libertarian of you, and I respect that. Still disagree though. Yes, the government should protect the rights of the father and stop the mother from having an abortion if he wishes to take over raising the child on his own. The governments job is to protect the rights of it's citizens so if a father's rights are ever identified as such, they should protect them.

I'll have to look up libertarian sometime. I just think there's already way too many laws on the books. I do think the government should defend our rights, but I can't think of a law that would do the trick in this situation.

I have in mind the teenagers who sneak away to an out of state clinic so they won't have to get their parents permission to get an abortion. If they can't stop teens, how are they going to stop an adult? Any law requiring a grown woman to carry a baby full term or get an abortion is going to be unenforceable, and there is no just penalty I can think of if she does break the law. It's like that divorce case where the husband wanted his kidney back from his wife. He should have every right to it, but it's just not going to happen.

 

[rojse]

While I'm not unsympathetic to fathers whose wishes clash with the mothers', I have to say that the woman's rights trump all. It's her body.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, shouldn't the father, having to pay child support for the next eighteen-odd years, get some say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

While I'm not unsympathetic to fathers whose wishes clash with the mothers', I have to say that the woman's rights trump all. It's her body.

I'm with Storm. I'll even go further.

In my opinion, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is tantamount to slavery.

Should the father have input into any decision concerning the fetus? Absolutely.

At the end of the day, though, it's the woman's call.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm with Storm.

I think most of us in this thread feel the same way. She just said it first.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think most of us in this thread feel the same way. She just said it first.

I'm quite glad to see that post, Buttercup. I didn't want to spend the time to read three or four pages of posts, so I just cut to the chase.

That Storm - she's a catbird.

 

[Alceste]

Sorry, chimpy, I forgot you. I was rather peeved at both "feelings, shmeelings" and "the trauma of stretch marks."

Maybe I can elaborate. Trey is talking about a law to ensure men don't have to feel sad because their girlfriend feels afraid to have a child. Since everybody in an unplanned pregnancy situation has feelings of some kind, the legal right he is suggesting would make the feelings of men equal to the feelings PLUS the physical agony and lasting damage of childbirth to women. Take the "feelings" out of the equation (because they are equal - sort of), and all you have left is men forcing women to endure the physical agony and lasting damage of childbirth.

I'm all for feelings in general - good ones, bad ones, they're the fruit of experience, which is glorious in any shade. But I don't think anyone's feelings are relevant when the question is whether or not the state should compel a woman to have a kid against her will because just because a guy who thinks it might be his wants her to.

Heck, I'm even all for childbirth - now - physical agony, lasting damage and all. But I wasn't when I was 20 and had my whole life ahead of me. I know myself, though, and if someone had forced me via a lawsuit not to have an abortion I would have kept the kid. But not him. What woman in her right mind would stay with a man who thinks her body is his personal offspring factory?

Anyway, the "shmeelings" was shorthand for "we all have them, so it's irrelevant to this discussion". Sorry if you were peeved. :flirt:

 

[Alceste]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, shouldn't the father, having to pay child support for the next eighteen-odd years, get some say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

If you decide you'd rather not bother paying child support, chances are you'd get away with it unless the mother of your child is either very poor (i.e. on benefits) or very rich (i.e. can afford a lawyer). My uncle, for example, fled with his secretary, leaving my aunt and his three small boys behind. She didn't see any child support. He kept saying he couldn't afford it, and she couldn't afford a lawyer. Meanwhile he bought a huge house and snazzy car and adopted two girls from China with his secretary. He made up for not ever seeing his three kids or contributing to the expense of raising them by mailing really expensive Christmas presents. Granted this is just one example, but get to know some single mothers and you'll discover the whole "stuck paying child support" thing is a bit of a myth.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Maybe I can elaborate. Trey is talking about a law to ensure men don't have to feel sad because their girlfriend feels afraid to have a child.

Anyway, the "shmeelings" was shorthand for "we all have them, so it's irrelevant to this discussion". Sorry if you were peeved. :flirt:

Feels sad. See this is what I'm talking about. You are trying to make men's emotions seem inconsequential while exaggerating the experience of child birth. And shmeelings is shorthand for "I don't care about your feelings". This is how you are presenting yourself, or at least, how you are being perceived. It makes it very hard to see your point of view.

As I have already said, we are not going to come to an understanding on this topic. Shall we agree to disagree?

 

[Alceste]

Why is it an extremely good post? It looks a lot more like male bashing to me.

it is reasonable that the "father's" rights should be given less consideration than the mother's unless his paternity is certain.
(conveniently snipped out part replaced)
almost always the mother who ends up raising the kids
reasonable to ensure the decision rests in the hands of the person who will bear the bulk of the responsibility for the child for the rest of its life

These comments are insulting and sexist.

So, are you saying it's "male-bashing" to point out that actual paternity in the entire mammal kingdom (that's us) is an unknown factor? In what way? If anything, it's equal-opportunity gender-neutral primate-bashing. If you'd like I could get into more detail about human promiscuity but it would involve an in depth discussion of primate testicle measurements and the evolutionary impact of intense sperm competition.

Are you claiming that it is NOT almost always the mother who ends up raising the kids after a breakup? If so, I'd like to see the statistics you are using to back up that claim.

All I am doing is observing what actually happens in the real world and drawing my conclusions from that. The real world is a fundamentally sexist place. Men have economic advantages and women have reproductive advantages, but it all balances out in the end, we hope.

I don't care what her experience with men has been, we are not all to be lumped into the category of deadbeat. I'm offended that she would try and make us all appear to be losers.

Any impression you got that I'm trying to make men look like losers is entirely in your head. I'm totally cool with men! In fact, some of my best friends are men!

In fact, quite a few of my man-friends even have kids they would dearly love to be able to see without having to cut the mother a check. I don't think it's fair at all that this is an uphill struggle for them, or that society is stacked against fathers rights when it comes to actually raising born children.

But you're not talking about born children. You're talking about possible future children contained inside another person's body, 40 to 60 % of whom will miscarry anyway by the grace of God - the ultimate abortionist. You want men to have legal authority over something that happens entirely inside the bodies of women. I'm only saying, go nuts with the responsible fatherhood but just wait until the baby can survive outside the body of the mother. Which, in most cases, is birth.

I guess this means that as a man my cause is hopeless. Because a woman can carry a baby and I can't, I have no rights.

You have the right to be with a woman who either shares your beliefs vis a vis "baby killing", or wants to raise a child with you.

Or, if you can't find one, you have the right to adopt, same as anybody.

 

[Storm]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, shouldn't the father, having to pay child support for the next eighteen-odd years, get some say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

I know I'm being repetitive, but no.

 

[Alceste]

Feels sad. See this is what I'm talking about. You are trying to make men's emotions seem inconsequential while exaggerating the experience of child birth. And shmeelings is shorthand for "I don't care about your feelings". This is how you are presenting yourself, or at least, how you are being perceived. It makes it very hard to see your point of view.

As I have already said, we are not going to come to an understanding on this topic. Shall we agree to disagree?

Trey, I've said it repeatedly and consistently - YOU have feelings and SO DOES SHE. So since you both have equally important feelings, what else is there to consider?

Normally I would agree to disagree, if you'd just said "I think the father's feelings are important", but you went and said you think the father's feelings should be enshrined in the law and protected by the courts at the expense of the feelings of the mother. When you go that far, you are affecting me, and every other woman you or I know. If some thick-skulled legislator reads this thread and thinks "Heck, yeah, Trey's really onto something there" and shoves through the type of law you propose, millions of women could lose their sovereignty over their own bodies. Remote as the possibility of this may seem, I feel compelled to defeat your argument so thoroughly that even you come around to my way of thinking. I can't help myself!

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I feel compelled to defeat your argument so thoroughly that even you come around to my way of thinking. I can't help myself!

Understood. But I'm as stubborn as a post and almost as smart so be prepared for an uphill battle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, shouldn't the father, having to pay child support for the next eighteen-odd years, get some say in whether an abortion occurs or not?

I was thinking that this is how this issue would actually play out if the law were changed.

I don't think that you'd get too many prospective fathers applying to the courts to stop women from having abortions; I think what would happen much more often is that they'd apply to have their parental responsibility waived if the prospective mother doesn't agree to end the pregnancy.